So says Eric J. Sinrod, a California attorney who criticizes the courts for taking e-discovery requirements to extreme lengths.

I have found the best course is to find out what sort of electronic data exists, and early–at the 26(f) meeting with opposing counsel, if possible. With that knowledge, I can make an intelligent decision as to whether I actually need things like meta data, or whether printouts of the electronic data will satisfy my needs.

But this will not handle every situation, of course, and I can think of many situations in which discovery costs could skyrocket due to e-discovery requirements.

Have you run into e-discovery issues? How have you handled them?

Perspective: The new e-discovery burden | CNet

The Small Firm Scorecard example graphic.

The Small Firm ScorecardTM

Is your law firm structured to succeed in the future?

The practice of law is changing. You need to understand whether your firm is positioned for success in the coming years. Our free Small Firm Scorecard will identify your firm’s strengths and weaknesses in just a few minutes.


  1. David Smith says:

    It is easy to point out flaws. The interesting thing is whta do you suggest instead? It seems silly to just say it is broken and sucks.


  2. Sam Glover says:

    I am not the author of the article, and I have not run into any problems with the current system, so I have nothing to suggest.

    But what keeps me up at night worrying about costs is the potential need to hire a third-party forensics expert. I think the proliferation of third-party forensics experts is absurd. A hard drive is just a filing cabinet, but nobody hires an expert to tell them what is in a filing cabinet.

    Neither should attorneys have to hire a computer forensics expert just to make a copy of a hard drive or to sort through the data on that drive.

Leave a Reply